#look this is extremely important stuff

[cyrsed]

does anyone know off the top of their head whether ds1 (2008) ever shows the chapter 1 title before you get on the tram and it goes 'chapter 1: new arrivals completed'? or do you only get to know what the chapter was called once you actually finish it? i've tried lookin at a walkthrough on youtube and i can't find it showing up anywhere before then but maybe i just missed it idk

[gingermintpepper]

In my Zeus bag today so I'm just gonna put it out there that exactly none of the great Ancient Greek warrior-heroes stayed loyal and faithful and completely monogamous and yet none of them have their greatness questioned nor do we question why they had the cultural prominence that they did and still do.

Jason, the brilliant leader of the Argo, got cold feet when it came to Medea - already put off by some of her magic and then exiled from his birthland because of her political ploys, he took Creusa to bed and fully intended on marrying her despite not properly dissolving things with Medea.

Theseus was a fierce warrior and an incredibly talented king but he had a horrible temper and was almost fatally weak to women. This is the man who got imprisoned in the Underworld for trying to get a friend laid, the man who started the whole Attic War because he couldn't keep his legs closed.

And we cannot at all forget Heracles for whom a not inconsiderable amount of his joy in life was loving people then losing the people around him that he loved. Wives, children, serving boys, mentors, Heracles had a list of lovers - male and female - long enough to rival some gods and even after completing his labours and coming down to the end of his life, he did not have one wife but three.

And y'know what, just because he's a cultural darling, I'll put Achilles up here too because that man was a Theseus type where he was fantastic at the thing he was born to do (that is, fight whereas Theseus' was to rule) but that was not enough to eclipse his horrid temper and his weakness to young pretty things. This is the man that killed two of Apollo's sons because they wouldn't let him hit - Tenes because he refused to let Achilles have his sister and Troilus who refused Achilles so vehemently that he ran into Apollo's temple to avoid him and still couldn't escape.

All four of these men are still celebrated as great heroes and men. All four of these men are given the dignity of nuance, of having their flaws treated as just that, flaws which enrich their character and can be used to discuss the wider cultural point of what truly makes a hero heroic. All four of these men still have their legacies respected.

Why can that same mindset not be applied to Zeus? Zeus, who was a warrior-king raised in seclusion apart from his family. Zeus who must have learned to embrace the violence of thunder for every time he cried as a babe, the Corybantes would bang their shields to hide the sound. Zeus learned to be great because being good would not see the universe's affairs in its order.

The wonderful thing about sympathy is that we never run out of it. There's no rule stopping us from being sympathetic to multiple plights at once, there's no law that necessitate things always exist on the good-evil binary. Yes, Zeus sentenced Prometheus to sufferation in Tartarus for what (to us) seems like a cruel reason. Prometheus only wanted to help humans! But when you think about Prometheus' actions from a king's perspective, the narrative is completely different: Prometheus stole divine knowledge and gifted it to humans after Zeus explicitly told him not to. And this was after Prometheus cheated all the gods out of a huge portion of wealth by having humans keep the best part of a sacrifice's meat while the gods must delight themselves with bones, fat and skin. Yes, Zeus gave Persephone away to Hades without consulting Demeter but what king consults a woman who is not his wife about the arrangement of his daughter's marriage to another king? Yes, Zeus breaks the marriage vows he set with Hera despite his love of her but what is the Master of Fate if not its staunchest slave?

The nuance is there. Even in his most bizarre actions, the nuance and logic and reason is there. The Ancient Greeks weren't a daft people, they worshipped Zeus as their primary god for a reason and they did not associate him with half the vices modern audiences take issue with. Zeus was a father, a visitor, a protector, a fair judge of character, a guide for the lost, the arbiter of revenge for those that had been wronged, a pillar of strength for those who needed it and a shield to protect those who made their home among the biting snakes. His children were reflections of him, extensions of his will who acted both as his mercy and as his retribution, his brothers and sisters deferred to him because he was wise as well as powerful. Zeus didn't become king by accident and it is a damn shame he does not get more respect.

[fortes-fortuna-iogurtum]

I've been reading Exodus lately and I've just gotten to the portions where God gives the first commands to the people via Moses (twice), and then goes on to give detailed instructions about the tabernacle and how it should be built, and I'm just... we think art is unimportant?? we think things only mean as much as their functionality?? we so easily fall into the trap of believing that beauty means nothing, that it's cheap and only worth whatever mindless distraction it brings, that it's barely more than a cheap sensual thrill, that buildings should just be practical and plain and cheap, that everything should be functional but ultimately disposable, that paintings and dresses and mugs and curtains and carpets are just pretty but have no real value, that beauty is fleeting and vain and therefore shouldn't be thought about too much, if even looked for at all... we fall into these traps so easily, and we forget that there are chapters upon chapters of painstakingly detailed plans to build one portable worship tent, and those plans have been handed down through thousands of years of human history, because beauty and art and skill in craft is important

[pokeberry5]

Did Tim “kill” King Snake and does Bruce know?

In Tim’s first solo min, he goes to Paris to learn martial arts and get that “edge” he thinks he needs to properly assume his role as Robin. He ends up on the tail of British Lord, Hong Kong-based heroine kingpin, leader of the Ghost Dragon gang, Sir Edmund Dorrance AKA King Snake (who is blind, which will be important later). Tim’s only companions on this world tour are Lady Shiva, who wants to defeat Dorrance to prove herself stronger, and ex-DEA agent Clyde Rawlins, who wants revenge against Dorrance for Dorrance’s reprisal killing of his family.

Robin I #4 --  the dream team, I love them

The trio catch up to Dorrance in Hong Kong, where he’s waiting for them in what seems to be the top suite of his skyscraper, 50 stories up.

In this final confrontation with Dorrance, Tim takes full advantage of a crucial moment of distraction to kick Dorrance out of the window. Dorrance ends up clinging to a ledge, hanging on for dear life.

Shiva then appears to order Tim to kill Dorrance, presumably by kicking him off the ledge. (It becomes clear then that this is how Shiva intends to prove herself stronger than Dorrance: she trained Tim and therefore Tim is her weapon and an extension of herself. If Tim defeats Snake, she defeats him by proxy).

Tim refuses and walks away. All we see is him listen  as Dorrance falls to what Tim explicitly assumes is his death, 50 stories down.

Robin I #5

So, while Tim isn't directly responsible for Dorrance's death, he was the one to put him in that position and then left him there to fall.

It’s unclear how Tim conceives of his actions here and how we are supposed to interpret them, especially in light of Tim’s refusal to kill in earlier chapters in this arc (and after).

Robin I #2

Robin I #4 -- I love Shiva

He stopped Rawlins from shooting and killing gang members, but then points to the danger Rawlins might have put them in by accidentally shooting crates containing plague (please read this arc it’s really fun despite suffering from uh. severe written in the 90s syndrome) and then explicitly restates his vow not to kill.

AND THEN, the plot thickens!!!

Dorrance did not actually fall to his death; he caught himself on a ledge below, where he believes Tim came down to taunt him. He came away from his fall with a fear of Tim and an obsession with killing him to purge himself of that fear. (anyway Sir Edmund Dorrance walked so Ra’s could run)

Batman (1940) #468

Batman (1940) #469

Dorrance moves to Gotham with the Ghost Dragons and takes over Chinatown (which. Who decided to put, a British lord, what boils down to an allegory of British colonialism in Hong Kong as the head of Chinatown? I have questions – anyway crimelord Lynx ftw)

In the course of his pursuit of Robin, it is revealed that Bruce believes “it was Lady Shiva that caused Dorrance to plunge to his death”—that Tim told him this.

Batman (1940) #469

This is clarified a bit more later, when Bruce confronts Dorrance.

#469

Dorrance explicitly accuses Tim of murder. He outlines the incident leading up to his fall—that Tim tricked him and attacked him from behind (he did, we saw this), that Dorrance was left dangling, and that Tim then caused him to fall.

Bruce refutes this accusation by claiming that it “wasn’t Robin who left you for dead. … Robin spared you. It was Lady Shiva who threw you to your death.”

From this, we can assume that in the moments after Tim refused Shiva and walked away, Shiva threw Dorrance down, which he didn’t realize because, as Bruce claims, he is blind and was likely traumatized by the incident. We can’t know this for sure, however—that Shiva threw him down—for exactly those reasons. Bruce is working off what Tim apparently told him, but we—and Tim—did not see this happen.

Bruce’s explanation of what actually happened also calls into question what exactly Tim told him about what happened.

It’s unclear what exactly he is refuting by: “It wasn’t Robin who left you for dead.” Does he not count Tim leaving Dorrance hanging as “leaving him for dead” or is the implication that Bruce thinks Shiva was the one who both threw Dorrance out the window and off the ledge? We never actually see what Tim told Bruce.

This leaves us with some possibilities:

that what Tim did by leaving Dorrance to dangle, by leaving him to Shiva, does not count against Batman’s no-killing rule.

Perhaps that Bruce does not feel that he could have expected or wanted Tim to step between Shiva and her target, Dorrance

that Bruce does not actually know what really happened—that Tim kicked Dorrance out the window, which in turn implies that either Tim may have stretched the truth or Bruce misinterpreted (purposefully?) what Tim told him

These all seem inconsistent, however, with incidents further down the line, with Cluemaster for example, and then when Tim rebukes Azbats for leaving Abattoir to die. A core tenet of Tim’s characterization is his sometimes frustrated but dedicated adherence to the no-kill rule (im beating anyone who cites the league bases at me away with a stick). So I don’t know what to do with this. Maybe it’s just comic inconsistency. Chuck Dixon, what are you doing?

If anyone has any thoughts about how to reconcile all this!! Please grant me peace

ADDENDA

i.e. stuff that I can’t possibly expect to be addressed in comics, but that I think about anyway

Related to this arc—a point is made a few issues later that Tim at this time doesn’t really have anyone to confide in. He can't really talk to Batman, isn’t close to Dick at this point, and while he is willing to work with Alfred and ask for help with Bat-related things, they’re not yet emotionally close. This isolation is poignantly demonstrated by him confessing his troubles to his still-comatose father.

Robin II #2

WHOM then would he have talked to about all that happened on his little “world tour”? No one? Besides whatever happened with Dorrance and brutal training and isolation, he also had to deal with the fact that Clyde Rawlins—whom he presumably developed some sort of camaraderie with (it’s tim ;-; he forms connections) was killed by Dorrance while working this mission with him.

We know that he had no one to talk to about all that. Did Tim linger on Rawlins????? On the fact that Shiva called him her weapon?? My boy is 13 ;-;

I also love that the whole buildup to Tim’s debut as Robin is Bruce agonizing about whether he should allow another boy to assume the position that cost him his son, and is then followed by plenty of moments after of Batman being overprotective.

Batman (1940) #468

And yet, when Tim is like “I need an edge to be Robin” presumably Bruce?? although this is never explicit connects him with a martial artist in Paris and sends him off on his own. It’s also possible that Tim is the one who comes up with this given that he agonizes a bit over whether he’s doing right by choosing his own path

Robin I #1

Either way, Tim goes to Paris Alone and essentially Unsupervised.

This lack of supervision is further emphasized by the fact that he goes to hunt down a king pin all the way to Hong Kong with Lady fucking Shiva and an ex DEA agent and no other back up. And Bruce presumably doesn’t find out until Tim runs into the hitman Henri Ducard in Hong Kong, who is apparently Batman’s acquaintance. (#5)

I have so many questions. I know that the actual reasoning is probably “oh we want to give this new character a little mini adventure arc on his own!!! To showcase how cool and independent the new robin is” but STILL

(also tim immediately getting himself a little team :’) I lub him)

[korkorali]

Hokay, we’re gonna have a small little fandom etiquette lesson here:

#Anti [Character] #[Character] Critical

See these two tags? They’re very good to use (if you want to write negative posts about a character) and very good to block (if you don’t want to see negative posts about a character)

Because yeah, you should be able to voice your opinion! You shouldn’t have to pretend to like a character just because a lot of other people seem to like them.

But maybe

Just maybe

When a character tag updates, like, once every two days on average

Maybe it can get a little tiring for people who like that character to see a bunch of hate towards that character instead of enjoyment

(And then they do stupid things like engage with and argue with that dislike instead of just blocking and moving on, which is genuinely A Dick Move most of the time)

Maybe it can get a little upsetting to see the same

Exact

Mountain of misinformation that maliciously mischaracterizes the character they like

That just gets repeated over and over and over

And stuff out the posts that are about enjoying the character within the tags

So try to use #Anti [Character] and/or #[Character] Critical when you are bringing up your grievances with a specific character, and try to block #Anti [Character] and #[Character] Critical if drama about that character is likely to upset you

Live and let live, and don’t muck up everybody else’s space to engage with what they enjoy

[wayfinderships]

Reminder that if you ship incest to GET OUT of my blog please and thank you <3

[whumpy-wyrms]

love how my friends just cannot resist telling me how whumpable i look whenever we hang out together

[egg-emperor]

ya know while I do still love a lot of e for everyone series I liked as a kid and didn't stop just because I'm older and it's "embarrassing" or I'm "too old for it" or some bullshit, all my most active interests in the past few years has mostly been dark edgy shit except for the Sonic series which has always been my main interest and always will. this was my bro's observation of that when I was talking about other stuff I'm into that makes me sound insane lol

so I'm so used to seeing much darker and edgier and gorier stuff etc in games so when I share a dark evil Eggman concepts/fics/analysis that I feel are pretty damn tame in comparison to all that, I'm just genuinely surprised when some people will react to it like "wtf is wrong with you this is so disturbing you monster you shouldn't write this" and all that. and that's with the way that I take direct inspiration from canon itself and the evil that Eggman actually does there

I literally never realize that some people would think what I was writing was that extreme, compared to all the stuff I'm finding entertainment in with the other series I like. I just write what I see in the games with Eggman and what to share the thoughts and creations it inspires in me with y'all. and I always try to tag it and will always take suggestions for tagging too/appreciate when it's pointed out to me that I didn't tag correctly

but these bad faith assumptions and judgements of my character as someone who wants to upset people aren't true. I'm not edgy for attention or to upset people like a bully or troll, it's just genuinely how my mind works and my passion and I just wanna speak and create from the heart and put it out there lol. and I always find that really fun but people try to start drama instead of either resolving it privately and sensibly or just blocking and moving on without telling people I'm trying to upset people on purpose

so anyway the best game of all time would be a game starring Eggman where the whole purpose is to kill as many people as possible XD /j

[certifiedwerewolf]

"The Rat Grinders are teenagers! They can't be held accountable for their actions of (checks hand) trying to murder the Bad Kids so they can murder the rest of the town too! The Bad Kids are the same age? They're monsters for not immediately trying to redeem them when they redeemed so many other people!"

Here is the fact: Everyone they redeemed was someone it was in that moment, as near as they could tell, safe to redeem. Ragh was not a threat once Coach Daybreak was taken off of the board. Aelwyn was seemingly an invalid who'd had her mind broken by torture and that still almost didn't work. Jawbone was barely a threat to begin with.

Like end of the day, the Rat Grinders are trying to kill them. And if we go by the Rat Grinders being in their own view the good ones... well, they aren't exactly trying to "redeem" or save the Bad Kids, are they?

Like this is on me for looking at fandom stuff and not just enjoying myself but from what I've seen it's like the fandom wants the Rat Grinders to be seen as kids but the Bad Kids, who are the same age, to be seen as adults picking on those kids, and that just doesn't work. They're all kids. They're all seventeen and eighteen years old and there's not a single argument you can make for one group that you can't make for the other.

[stirdrawsandreblaws]

messing with benchmark cc now and debating whether or not to change the nose on my bunniisan when we get the free fantas

i like the more rabbity look of the second one, plus i've already drawn him with something more like that as well as the big curly hair squeenix won't let me have on m!viera yet YOSHI-P PLEASE

BUT i have also played with him a lot and i'm attached to his old face so idk if i really want to change it...putting it to a vote lmfao

as an aside, i really like how the lighting engine handles dark skin even in cc now; it's a massive improvement.

[repurposedmeatlocker]

I find it extremely discouraging how a lot of the time art uploaded to be seen online becomes influenced under the constraints of monetary gain and attention.

It feels like value is placed more on what would be most successful within a wide-reaching audience rather than actual care and intention put behind the work one does.

I think this explains why a lot of art, even by really skilled artists I admire, sometimes end up becoming empty and overly similar to each other.

[transmasc-wizard]

woah its two Macks, almost exactly 1 year apart, who did that--

oh wait me! i did that! December 26th 2021 on the left and December 17th 2022 on the right!

ive been posting digital art for a year now and decided to redraw the first digital piece I ever posted (and the 3rd thing I ever drew on my tablet at all!) to just see how i've improved. And to be honest, I was terrified there would be no difference, but imo I definitely did get better. (For one thing, I'm not absolutely petrified of any sort of background anymore, lol.) The second one also took less time than the first, which is nice--better work in less time.

Val Saintly Taglist: @void-fireworks, @idkjustgowithitok, @albatris, @cream-and-tea, again my memory is horrific, lmk if you are not actually on there sjdhksdhkf

[image IDs under the cut]

[ID 1: a digital drawing of my OC Mack. They have a blue hoodie that says "fruit bat", pale skin, dark hair, red eyes, dagger earrings, and broken pink heart sunglasses. They are covered in blood and have a neutral expression. Orange lighting comes from an unknown source.

ID 2: a digital drawing of my OC Mack. They look the same, though their hoodie is purple now. He is now standing in a doorway, with the lighting coming from behind, and her eyes glow. end ID]

[zincbot]

nobody understands ferb like i do-

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[astrxealis]

can't change haruka's voting result now but man m glad i voted innocent (it was mostly to lower the gap but also i am unsure still whether innocent/guilty is better so)

[paragonrobits]

some important calvin and hobbes facts in case you haven't read the original comic strip in a long time or only absorbed stuff on it from memes and out of context bits on here:

Calvin's last name has never been given, and neither has any of his parent's names. This was actually why his uncle Max only showed up for a brief storyline; the creator of the comic, Bill Watterson, ultimately felt that while it was fine to have him as someone for his parents to talk to, it felt far too awkward to never have Max refer to them by name and he never made a return appearance.

The general tone of the comic is fairly light-hearted, with a big emphasis on goofy slapstick comedy contrasted by clever wordplay and often surprising adult-centered jokes that'll hit you like a slap. A big part of the comedy is, as Watterson put it (paraphrased) "It's really funny to me when people express deeply stupid ideas with really fancy terminology." One notable example you might have seen is that one bit where Calvin asks his mom for money to buy a Satan-worshiping rock album and his mom replies that there's nothing genuine about them and they're just putting on the attitude for shock value, and comisserates with Calvin as he deplores that mainstream nihilism can't be trusted. He concludes that childhood is disillusioning.

There is a LOT of criticism of the extreme materialism and selfish mentality of the late 80s, when the comic was initially written. This may go a long way to explain how its aged so well; much of what it criticizes resonates well with people today.

Bill Watterson views comic strips a legitimate form of artwork, and repeatedly fought to have more space to draw more beautiful and artistic backgrounds, which was a very hard fight and unpopular even with other comic strip artists. He eventually did win some compromises and a lot of Calvin And Hobbes' artwork shows it, with the use of space to indicate time as well as a sharp contrast between the often plain environments of mundane life contrasted by the wildly beautiful imagery of Calvin's imagination (which often sports realistic depictions in an art shift of sorts).

Hobbes is explicitly not an imaginary friend, by word of Watterson himself. We don't know WHAT he is exactly, and Hobbes is apparently unaware of the strange nature of his reality; people look at him and only see an ordinary stuffed tiger plushie, but he has a tangible effect on the world that would be physically impossible for Calvin to do on his own. He's apparently been around for a while, and was apparently around when Calvin was a young baby.

On that note; Hobbes has implicitly killed (notably treated as both a gag and also with the vibe of 'he's a tiger, duh') and while he doesn't do it again on-screen, he doesn't have any moral issues about it. Calvin claims that he's never had trouble bringing Hobbes to school because the last time he did, Hobbes killed and ate a bully named Tommy Chestnut and simply comments that it was gross and he needed a bath. Calvin's tried to repeat this again, but Hobbes was grossed out at the thought having to eat a kid raw and not being allowed to use an oven first, or complaining that children are too fattening.

Hobbes became gradually less human-like in body language and more like an actual cat in both body language and behavior; this was due to Watterson drawing more inspiration from his cat, who also inspired a lot of Hobbes' running gags, such as pouncing on Calvin when he got home. Several years into the syndication of the strip, Watterson's cat passed away, and he did a tribute to her with a comic strip of the two of them agreeing to try to dream together so they can keep playing when they have to sleep; Watterson's commentary (if I recall right), remarks on his cat: "We can see each other again in dreams."